Prologue: As the world awaits
the resolution of problems created years ago by the granting
of patents on living organisms and their pieces and products,
questions of access and benefit sharing persist: how to avoid
biopiracy and ensure justice for those whose biological materials
and traditional knowledge may be part of other people's research
aspirations and patent applications.

Today,
. . . "The Trade Secrets of Jay McGown" (or "Why
We Wonder Just How Much Biopiracy is Financed by the Government").

HISTORY:

Last season,
Biodiversity Mystery Theatre brought readers a series of thrilling
tales derived from the files of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO). Aided by editor Freida Morris and translator
Alexandra Curi, Jay McGown had uncovered projects suggestive
of biopiracy and crying for investigation.

In the
wake of that first season came praise for McGown, threats to
the Institute, and further questions about biopiracy. Among the
most frequently asked questions: "Where did McGown get his
material?"

Last season,
we pointed people to the files and website of the USPTO. (1)

This season, we expose another rich source of projects deserving
further scrutiny. In so sharing, we acknowledge that we may be
violating the trade secrets of McGown and his hard-working crew.
Sorry, Jay.

WARNINGS:

-- Mention
of the name of a person or a project here or on any database
should NOT imply that biopiracy has been committed or is being
alleged. Mention of principal investigators (PIs) and their projects
and organizations should only suggest that further questions
MAY be in order. It is always wise to check further.

-- Lack
of mention of the name of a person or a project here or on any
database should not exempt the unmentioned from further scrutiny
for biopiracy. No single database covers all research. Unfortunately,
some of the research may appear on NO database whatsoever. It
is always wise to check further.

-- Many
of the researchers who seek biological materials may either work
for or get grants from institutions and agencies that have ethical
protocols about bioprospecting. It is worth investigating whether
the institutional ethical requirements are enforced and/or stringent
enough to avoid problems of biopiracy. It is always wise to check
further.

FISHING
FOR BIOPIRACY:

Notes:
[a] A process similar to that described below should work with
any relevant, searchable electronic database.

[b] Other
US federal databases that are not online may be searched by filing
a (successful) request under the US Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).

CRISP (Computer
Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects) is a searchable
database of (US) federally funded biomedical research projects
conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions.
The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research
at the National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded
by the National Institutes of Health (NIH [, including the Fogarty
International Center and NIAID, the National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Disease)], Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
(SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDCP), Agency for Health Care Research and Quality
(AHRQ), and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH). Users,
including the public, can use the CRISP interface to search for
scientific concepts, emerging trends and techniques, or identify
specific projects and/or investigators.

In order
to access the CRISP system you must use a reasonably recent web
browser with JavaScript enabled, such as Netscape 3.0 (or later)
or Internet Explorer 4.0 (or later).

Those new
to hunting biopirates may find this section useful. Others should
skip to the next section ("Using CRISP").

Concerns
about biopiracy derive from concern for biodiversity itself and
concern for the rights of those who own or steward biodiversity
and the traditional knowledge related to it. Thus in every case
where biodiversity and/or traditional knowledge is being accessed,
the biopirate hunter asks whether the researcher (or company
employee or ethnobotanist or whoever is the seeker) has discerned
who are the owners/stewards of the sought-after biodiversity
or knowledge. Has the researcher obtained prior informed consent
from those who have the right to give prior informed consent
for the access to and use of this material or knowledge? How
has the researcher determined that those he is dealing with indeed
are the owners/stewards? Is there anyone who would disagree with
the researcher's determination of ownership or stewardship? What
evidence is there of the rightful owners/stewards' grant of prior
informed consent to the research? Is there a contract? Under
what circumstances was it signed? Who advised the owners/stewards
of their rights under alien intellectual property systems? What
benefits will flow back to the stewards/owners? If they said
"no" to the research, were their wishes respected?
What agreements about subsequent patents and patent royalties
have been made? What restrictions have the local peoples/owners/stewards
put on the amount, use and development of whatever diversity
or knowledge may be extracted or shared? Are there any time restrictions
related to access? Is there an up-front payment to the owners/stewards
(or their communities) or just a series of small payments should
the researcher or subsequent persons create a (later-developed)
viable commercial product from the biodiversity ? Who is doing
the bookkeeping on the deal, if anyone? Will the owner/stewards
be included in the list of authors of any related publications
and patents? How will disputes over the arrangement be dealt
with? Can the owners/stewards call the deal off and if so, how?
. . . These are but a few of the questions to keep in mind when
scanning databases with an intention to monitor for biopiracy.

PAGE ONE:
Once you access the site, a red box appears in the upper left
hand quadrant of the page. It says "Go to CRISP Query Form".
Click on the box.

QUERY FORM:
Next a "Query Form" appears. Its first box allows you
to enter search terms of various kinds.

Here you
must decide where your real bioprospecting interest is. What
specifically are you worried about? A particular kind of organism?
An individual or a group of researchers? A particular country
or region of the world? A particular tribal or ethnic groups
or national group? What?

The "what"
is likely to be your "search term".

If you
enter a search term that is the name of a plant, a microorganism,
a geographical region, an ethnic community, a city, or a country,
without doing anything further but clicking "Submit query",
you will either get a list of studies or a notice that no relevant
studies have been found. If the research has benefitted from
funding by any of the federal agencies listed, it should appear
in the list of studies relevant to that name.

If you
wish to search a phrase, e.g. "Costa Rica", rather
than single keyword(s), click the appropriate button - i.e.,
"phrase", underneath the search term(s) box.

If your
focus is a particular researcher, go to the space for "PI"
and enter the name there (not in the first box asking for search
terms). Then click "Submit query".

Note: the
query form has many, many dimensions along which you can submit
a query. Take the time to check them out. You may want to set
the number of studies shown to be higher than the preset "250".

If you
discover a good "search term" and are rewarded with
a list of studies related to that term, congratulations. You
have arrived at the beginning of your investigation. With luck,
you may only have a few day's more work to do.

THE LIST
OF ABSTRACTS: Examine each of the studies whose title appears.
Do that by clicking on the title of the study. Clicking leads
to that particular study's abstract.

If the
abstract looks problematic (i.e., suggestive of a study deserving
of further scrutiny for biopiracy), try contacting the researcher
- the PI - or his/her organization - and asking your questions
directly. The email address of the PI is provided in the CRISP
database, along with the abstract. If an email to the PI fails
to yield information in a timely way, write the institution with
which the PI is connected. That too also listed on CRISP. Remember,
however, these are likely to be busy people and institutions.
So it may take some time and persistence to get an answer. In
the meantime, look these people and studies up on one of the
many search engines on the web, starting with Google. Try the
library too, including the thesis databases. See if these folks
have a bioprospecting track record. And, of course, check out
the free online databases provided by government patent agencies
in the US, Europe, and elsewhere.

If the
PI does answer email, ask for copies of any documents you may
be concerned about. If a valid contract exists with the stewards
and/or owners of the biodiversity in question, the stewards/owners
should have a copy too. Depending on the country involved, copies
may also be filed with relevant government agencies. Note: Sometimes,
if the steward/owners do not have what you want, they will complete
your research for you. This would be the ideal situation. As
we said last season, "Only further research, hopefully carried
out by those whose biodiversity is the subject of " (your
concern). . . will provide the necessary answers.

Do not
jump to conclusions, whether you get the information you seek
or not. To repeat again, it is always worth checking further.

DEALING
WITH FAILURE: Sometimes you just cannot finish the search. You
do not find enough information to answer your questions one way
or another. In that case, you have three choices: forget the
whole thing, file your research until something else turns up,
or publish before your research is complete. If you do publish
before everything is known, be honest. Point out what you do
not know and avoid defaming anyone. If you are lucky, one of
your readers may give you the one piece of the puzzle you could
not find yourself.

TRYING
IT OUT:
(2)

At the
Query Form on the CRISP database, in June, 2004, in the space
for "search terms",

Abstract:
DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): This is a planning grant
to allow a consortium of marine ecologists, chemists, and policy/economic
development faculty from Georgia Tech, marine chemists and microbiologists
from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and natural products
chemistry, biodiversity conservation, and economic development
faculty from the University of the South Pacific to cooperatively
investigate how marine natural products from coral reef organisms
in Fiji might be used for drug development, and to enhance local
efforts focused on madne conservation and on economic development
based on preservation of marine biodiversity. A secondary effort
focuses on similar goals in local freshwater habitats. This "drugs
from the sea" effort will apply ecological insights and
leads from traditional Fijian healers to discover new biochemical
diversity among the marine microbes, seaweeds, benthic invertebrates
and freshwater macrophytes of Fiji . Coincident with these bioprospecting
efforts will be complementary efforts focused on conservation
and economic development. In developing countries, successful
biodiversity conservation depends on full involvement in the
planning process of the users of that biodiversity, thus, promoting
the understanding among these users that they benefit from such
conservation. At a local level this can be achieved through the
development of community-based resource management plans and
alternative income-generating activities based on the biodiversity
being conserved. Such efforts are already beginning in Fiji ,
but these would be enhanced significantly by the efforts of this
ICBG program. At a larger scale one of the key steps for conservation
of genetic resources is developing spatially explicit models
of their organization. This will allow systematic exploration
for therapeutically useful compounds and enhance the ability
to conserve and manage so as to prevent loss of biodiversity
and loss of economic opportunities dependent upon biodiversity.
Geographic information systems (GIS) will be used to develop
a model of biodiversity on the coral reefs of Viti Levu, Fiji
and to incorporate a database of environmental parameters. This
will facilitate an assessment of the effects of locally managed
marine protected areas, and serve as a baseline for early detection
of reef degradation.

OPEN QUESTIONS:
The CRISP database, like that of the US Patent and Trademark
Office, is an excellent starting place for research about bioprospecting
and biopiracy. CRISP contains abstracts about biomedical research
funded by the U.S. federal government. Several of those projects
appear to be engaged in or benefitting from bioprospecting. Unfortunately,
because CRISP contains only abstracts, it begs more questions
than it answers about whether the research described might also
involve biopiracy. Only further investigation. . . hopefully
carried out by those whose biodiversity is the subject of desire
. . . can answer those questions.

(2) In
mid-June, 2004, senior biopirate hunter Jay McGown spent a half
hour on the CRISP database and sent the Edmonds Institute about
250 kilobytes (KB) of abstracts "for further investigation".
The abstracts covered research being done all over the world.
Because of the length, we do not reproduce Jay's list here. If
you would like a copy, write <beb@igc.org>. Just put "Jay's
List" in the subject line.

BIODIVERSITY
MYSTERY THEATRE is produced by the Edmonds Institute, a public
interest, non-profit concerned with issues related to environment
and technology. Known for its work on biodiversity, the Institute
was incorporated in 1995 and is a 501(c)(3) organization under
the rules of the US Internal Revenue Service.